champswest

There has been a lot of criticism and defense of the Michigan basketball program in recent weeks, especially concerning recruiting and team performance. Some of it has been factual and valid and some of it not so much. When the comments are based on expectations or personal preference, they are hard to defend or criticize. But there is information available that documents where Michigan ranks versus other Big Ten Schools and other accepted basketball powers. My intent is to provide statistical facts and to minimize personal opinion. I will let you, the reader, use this information to support your own point of view, change your point of view or debunk other posters point of view with whom you disagree. What fun!

First, some historical facts about Michigan basketball.

John Beilein arrived for the 2007-08 season. It had been 21 years since Michigan last won a Big Ten championship. Beilein has won two in his 9 years here. It had been 9 years (1998) since UM had appeared in the NCAA tournament. Beilein took the team to the tournament in his second year and in six of his 9 seasons with seeds of 10, 8, 4, 4, 2 & 11. It had been 12 years since our last sweet sixteen and elite eight, Beilein has made two. 1998 was the last time Michigan finished in the final AP Top 25 Poll, finishing 12th. Since Beilein, we have finished 13 in 2011-12, tied for 10th in 20112-13 and 7th in 2013-14. He was voted Big Ten Coach of the Year in 2014. He recruited and coached two of Michigan's five B1G POYs in Burke and Stauskas (others were Tarpley, Grant & Rice). Burke, along with Russell are Michigan's two National POYs.

To evaluate recruiting, I looked at team recruiting rankings using 247 Sports Composite rankings from 2003 (the first year of comprehensive data) through 2015. The 2016 classes are not yet complete. The method used was to add the team recruiting rankings for those 13 years and compute the average annual ranking for the teams. I listed the teams in order of average rank for that period selected. I also listed each team's best and worst ranking and how many times they finished in the top ten and top 25 ranked classes.You will notice that just about every team had a bad year or more. Caveat: When I got to teams ranked in high double digits or triple digits, I noticed that it was often due to small class size (one or two players, even if they were four and five star players). For that reason, I dropped years where a team was ranked above 99 and if there were more than four such years out of the 13 used, I dropped that team from this analysis. I capped the list at 50 teams. Obviously, this looks only at recruiting and does not account for transfers or early attrition.

For performance, I used the NCAA tournament. I listed results for the period 2004 (first year that the 2003 class would have played) through 2016. I listed the number of tournament appearances, sweet sixteens, elite eights, final fours and championships.

Avg

# Of

# Of

NCAA

Class

Best

Worst

Top 10

Top 25

Tourn.

Sweet

Elite

Final

Team

Rank

Rank

Rank

Classes

Classes

Appear.

Sixteen

Eight

Four

Champs

1

Kentucky

10

1

37

8

11

11

6

6

4

1

2

Duke

13

1

55

8

11

13

9

4

3

2

3

Kansas

13

1

44

5

12

13

8

6

2

1

4

Florida

13

4

95

3

10

9

6

6

3

2

5

UNC

14

1

67

9

10

12

8

7

4

2

6

Arizona

15

3

69

6

11

11

6

4

1

0

7

Syracuse

17

3

36

5

8

10

6

3

2

0

8

Memphis

19

3

59

7

9

9

4

3

1

0

9

UCONN

20

3

44

5

9

9

5

5

4

3

10

Texas

20

2

46

5

8

12

3

2

0

0

11

Ohio State

22

2

89

7

8

9

5

3

2

0

12

UCLA

23

1

64

4

10

9

5

3

3

0

13

Michigan St

26

10

76

2

7

13

8

5

4

0

14

NC State

26

6

65

3

8

7

3

0

0

0

15

Florida St

27

4

58

2

7

4

1

0

0

0

16

Louisville

28

1

69

6

9

11

7

6

3

1

17

Alabama

28

8

68

2

9

4

1

1

0

0

18

Oklahoma St

28

1

47

1

3

7

2

1

1

0

19

Georgetown

29

7

89

2

6

8

2

1

1

0

20

LSU

29

2

63

3

5

4

1

1

1

0

21

Illinois

30

11

55

0

5

7

2

1

1

0

22

Michigan

31

7

73

2

3

6

2

2

1

0

23

Washington

31

5

89

3

6

6

3

0

0

0

24

Indiana

32

4

80

4

6

7

3

0

0

0

25

Tennessee

32

5

66

2

4

7

4

1

0

0

26

Baylor

32

6

72

2

7

6

3

2

0

0

27

Missouri

33

11

58

0

5

5

1

1

0

0

28

Arkansas

34

6

97

2

6

4

0

0

0

0

29

Oregon

34

9

80

1

5

6

3

2

0

0

30

Villanova

35

5

76

1

2

11

5

3

2

1

31

Mississippi St

35

4

85

2

5

4

0

0

0

0

32

Maryland

36

7

83

1

3

6

1

0

0

0

33

Virginia

36

1

71

1

5

5

2

1

0

0

34

Texas AM

38

4

79

1

4

7

2

0

0

0

35

Standford

39

11

82

0

3

5

2

0

0

0

36

Pittsburgh

39

11

84

0

4

11

3

1

0

0

37

Wisconsin

40

22

57

0

1

13

7

3

2

0

38

Oklahoma

40

7

83

1

3

8

3

2

1

0

39

Auburn

40

15

70

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

40

Cincinnati

41

19

86

0

4

8

1

0

0

0

41

Purdue

41

7

86

1

2

8

2

0

0

0

41

UNLV

42

4

93

2

4

6

1

0

0

0

43

Notre Dame

43

15

67

0

2

8

2

2

0

0

44

Marquette

44

7

96

1

5

8

3

1

0

0

45

Xavier

45

17

87

0

3

11

6

2

0

0

46

South Carolina

45

20

84

0

2

1

0

0

0

0

47

California

46

4

98

1

2

6

0

0

0

0

48

Va. Tech

46

12

92

0

3

1

0

0

0

0

49

West Virginia

46

14

94

0

2

9

5

2

1

0

50

Miami

50

14

86

0

3

3

2

0

0

0

For Big Ten teams, I did a second recap that looked only at the years Beilein has been at Michigan (2008-2016). I didn't include the 2007 class because that wasn't his class and I did include 2016, even though it isn't final, because many complain about recent results. I am listing the team and their average recruiting ranking for this period and the number of B1G regular season championships won. (1) Illinois 25, 0 (2T) Ohio State 26, 3 (2T) Michigan State 26, 3 (4) Indiana 27, 2 (5) Michigan 32, 2 (6) Maryland 38, 0 (7) Wisconsin 47, 2 (8T) Purdue 48, 1 (8T) Minnesota 48, 0 (10) Iowa 59, 0. Maryland, along with Rutgers and Nebraska have not been full time members. PSU? Who cares? I will point out that Beilein's first class in 2008, which he got a late start on, was his worst ranked at #73. It was comprised of Cronin, Novak and Douglass. If you drop that class from this analysis, Michigan's average ranking rises to 26.

Where's the bump? Many complain that we didn't get a bump from our run in 2013 & 2014. The 2014 class was #28 (and was pretty well finalized prior to the run), 2015 was a class of one (4* Wagner) and 2016 is currently at #27. That is an improvement over our average of 32, but not a huge leap. I am not sure there is such a thing as a bump from a deep two-year tournament run. It is hard to find comparable teams to compare it to. Feel free to give it a shot.

On a final note, I found this interesting. Leading up to Villanova's championship run this year, their last four classes were ranked #38, #32, #46 & #30. Oklahoma, who they beat in the semis, had classes of #45, #83, #39 & #54. Wisconsin made it to the championship game in 2014 with classes of #50, #39, #120 & #46. Likewise, MSU's final four finish in 2014 was with classes ranked #21, #12, #76 & #48. And for Michigan in 2013 it was #35, #48, #21 & #7. Top ranked players is one way to get there and experienced teams of upper classmen works also,

Recruiting is the lifeblood of a college football program. It is one of the three key components along with player developement and sceme/game day coaching, that leads to championships. Many of us feel that we have 2 and 3 covered with the current staff, but how far are we away in the talent department if we want to compete with the big boys?

To answer that question, I looked at the last four recruiting classes with the focus on five and four star players using the 247 Composite Rankings. This a simple method and has some flaws, but it is a starting point for discussion. One problem is that 247 only awards 25 five stars and in 2016 they awarded 313 four stars. That seems a little off to me. Rashan Gary, as the #1 player, was given a score of 1.000 while the #25 player was rated at .9835. That is a fairly tight grouping. The four stars range from #26 at .9821 to #338 at .8901. Player #339 drops off by only .0002 to .8899, yet he becomes only a three star. So with this method of only counting the number of stars a team takes, no weight is given to which end of the scale those stars were nearer to. And then there are the issues with the ratings themselves and how subjective they are. Did this player attend our camp and what does his offer sheet look like?

Lastly, this method looks only at incoming classes and doesn't account for incoming grad transfers, PWOs or attrition.

Before we can win a natty, we will first need to win the Big Ten. How well do we stack up against our fellow conferebce members? Pretty well, thank you. I broke this down by division because I found it to be very interesting.

2013

2014

2015

2016

2013 - 2016

Team

Rank

5*

4*

Rank

5*

4*

Rank

5*

4*

Rank

5*

4*

5*

4*

Total

Ohio State

2

1

19

3

1

15

7

0

15

4

1

17

3

66

69

Michigan

4

1

17

20

1

8

37

0

6

5

1

14

3

45

48

Penn State

33

1

3

24

0

5

15

0

13

19

1

7

2

28

30

Michigan State

35

0

4

25

1

3

22

0

5

22

0

9

1

21

22

Maryland

41

0

3

40

1

3

49

0

2

42

0

3

1

11

12

Indiana

42

0

4

48

0

1

52

0

0

56

0

0

0

5

5

Rutgers

50

0

1

53

0

1

56

0

1

74

0

0

0

3

3

10

179

189

Nebraska

22

0

7

36

0

2

30

0

4

24

0

5

0

18

18

Wisconsin

38

0

1

33

0

3

40

0

2

32

0

3

0

9

9

Northwestern

52

0

1

47

0

4

54

0

0

51

0

0

0

5

5

Illinois

49

0

1

72

0

0

48

0

2

71

0

0

0

3

3

Minnesota

66

0

0

57

0

1

63

0

0

48

0

1

0

2

2

Iowa

54

0

0

59

0

0

60

0

1

46

0

0

0

1

1

Purdue

62

0

1

69

0

0

65

0

0

79

0

0

0

1

1

0

39

39

In the last four years, the Big Ten has landed a total of 228 five and four star players and 189 of them, including all 10 five stars, went to the east division. In the 2016 class, the ratio is 53 to 9. Wow! Talk about competitive balance. Not. Iowa and Purdue each managed only one four star in the last four years. WTF?

We appear to be in a two-team race with OSU and we were pretty much in a dead heat this year. Over the four-year period, these two teams landed 51% of the top talent taken by the Big Ten. A current problem for Michigan is that we have two weak classes sandwiched between our strong 2013 and 2016. We have a great shot at winning the Big Ten this year based on talent.

Here is the top recruiting competition on the national scene.

2013

2014

2015

2016

2013 - 2016

Team

Rank

5*

4*

Rank

5*

4*

Rank

5*

4*

Rank

5*

4*

5*

4*

Total

Alabama

1

6

12

1

6

15

1

5

15

1

3

14

20

56

76

LSU

6

0

19

2

4

13

6

2

11

3

2

16

8

59

67

Notre Dame

5

2

17

11

0

16

13

0

14

15

0

10

2

57

59

Florida State

11

2

8

4

2

14

3

4

10

2

1

17

9

49

58

Auburn

10

3

8

6

2

11

8

1

20

9

1

11

7

50

57

Georgia

12

0

15

8

3

10

5

2

12

7

3

10

8

47

55

Southern Cal

13

4

8

10

2

8

2

3

15

8

2

12

11

43

54

UCLA

7

1

18

18

0

9

12

3

10

12

1

12

5

49

54

Texas AM

9

1

14

5

5

3

11

11

2

12

18

0

8

6

45

51

Clemson

15

1

10

17

0

10

9

3

9

10

1

12

5

41

46

Tennessee

24

0

4

7

0

16

4

1

15

14

0

10

1

45

46

Texas

17

1

8

16

0

8

10

1

13

11

0

13

2

42

44

Ole Miss

8

4

7

15

0

6

17

0

7

6

3

12

7

32

39

Florida

3

2

13

9

1

8

21

2

3

13

0

9

5

33

38

Oklahoma

16

1

7

14

1

7

14

0

10

20

1

8

3

32

35

Miami

14

0

10

12

1

7

26

0

6

21

0

10

1

33

34

Oregon

19

1

7

21

0

7

16

1

6

28

0

6

2

26

28

Stanford

51

0

4

13

1

7

24

0

5

16

0

9

1

25

26

Baylor

27

1

3

26

1

3

36

0

3

17

0

8

2

17

19

To no surprise, Alabama is in a class by themselves. Only OSU, LSU, FSU, Auburn, Georgia and USC are even in the conversation. Michigan is about two full recruiting classes away from catching up with Alabama talent, meaning they would need to add about 28 more 5 and 4 stars. If Michigan continues recruiting at this years pace, we will be fine. At a minimum, I think that we need to achieve an on-going four year cycle of two top 15 classes and two top 7ish classes to stay competitive with talent. I think that is very doable as long as we continue to show results on the field.

There is more than one way to skin a cat or get to a Final Four. One way is to use the Duke/Kentucky/Kansas/UNC way of grabbing as many top 35 guys (or as in the case of Kentucky, top 25 guys) and then throw them out there for a year or two and try to out talent other teams and then move on to the next class of five stars as this year’s team heads to the NBA. Or, you can use the MSU/Wisconsin/UCONN method of signing guys ranked in the 100-200 range (or as in the case of Wisconsin, 200+) and try to develop them over a 4-5 year period to become a well-oiled machine that can beat you with their system and efficiency. Of course, all coaches try to get as good of players as they can (you are trying, Wisconsin, right?), but somehow they seem hard to come by.

With that in mind, I looked at this past season’s final four teams (I threw in Michigan in case anyone was wondering how we compare). I listed each team’s players in order of average minutes played per game, with the number of average minutes played appearing in the column representing the recruiting class that they were in. I totaled the minutes by class for each team so that we could easily see how many minutes each team was getting from freshmen, sophomores, juniors and seniors. Because Kentucky went 10 deep, I included the top 10 players for each team. In the first column, I included each player’s 247 Sports Composite Ranking.

Duke

247 Sports

Fr.

Soph

Jr

Sr

RS Sr

Rank

Player

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

33

Cook

35.9

7

T. Jones

33.1

1

Okafor

30.7

13

Winslow

28.8

30

Jefferson

22.2

37

M. Jones

20.3

13

Saulaimon

19.3

26

Ojeleye

10.5

62

Plumlee

9.4

25

Allen

8.1

247

Total

100.7

30.8

41.5

45.3

0

Wisconsin

247 Sports

Fr.

Soph

Jr

Sr

RS Sr

Rank

Player

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

218

Kaminsky

32.6

145

Hayes

32.5

207

Gasser

32.1

12

Dekker

29.8

111

Koenig

27.6

201

Jackson

27.4

200

Dukan

16.6

239

Showalter

7.7

230

Brown

6.8

254

Dearring

2.8

1,817

Total

0

69.7

37.5

60

48.7

Kentucky

247 Sports

Fr.

Soph

Jr

Sr

RS Sr

Rank

Player

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

6

Arron Harrison

25.8

5

Andrew Harrison

25.4

43

Cauley-Stein

25.4

19

Ulis

22.9

10

Lyles

21.9

22

Booker

21.8

5

Towns

20.7

8

Polythress

20.3

10

Johnson

17.3

18

Lee

11.7

146

Total

87.3

80.2

45.7

0

0

Michigan State

247 Sports

Fr.

Soph

Jr

Sr

RS Sr

Rank

Player

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

105

Valentine

32.8

188

Trice

32.6

17

Dawson

29.8

290+

Forbes

27.1

92

Costello

20.1

104

Nairn

19.1

137

Schilling

17.4

149

Bess

11.4

219

Clark

11.1

290

Ellis

8.9

1,591

Total

41.6

26.3

80

62.4

0

Michigan

247 Sports

Fr.

Soph

Jr

Sr

RS Sr

Rank

Player

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

28

Irvin

36.1

215

LeVert

35.8

44

Walton

33.3

171

Albrecht

31.4

326

Dawkins

19.9

203

Doyle

18.7

385

Abdur-Rahkman

17.7

27

Chatman

15.3

253+

Bielfeldt

13.6

86

Donnal

11.3

1,738

Total

71.6

80.7

67.2

13.6

0

Fr.

Soph

Jr

Sr

RS Sr

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

247

Duke

100.7

30.8

41.5

45.3

0

1,817

Wisconsin

0

69.7

37.5

60

48.7

146

Kentucky

87.3

80.2

45.7

0

0

1,591

Michigan State

41.6

26.3

80

62.4

0

1,738

Michigan

71.6

80.7

67.2

13.6

0

Duke got nearly 101 minutes from freshmen, Kentucky got over 87 and Wisconsin got zero. On the other hand, Wisconsin Seniors contributed 109 minutes compared to Duke’s 45 and Kentucky’s zero. If you compare the first and second year players against the upper classmen, Duke is 132/87, Kentucky is 168/46, Wisconsin is 70/146 and MSU is 68/142.

If you compared Wisconsin’s player rankings against Kentucky and Duke, you might expect a 30-point Badger loss. The fact that Wisconsin defeated the Wildcats and played the Blue Devils right down to the wire, speaks well for Bo Ryan’s system (and UCONN last year). On the other hand, Kentucky did go 38-1 and Duke won it all, both using more of the 5 star approach. For further contrast, note the total of each team’s player ranking. Kentucky’s total is only 146. MSU had 5 players with an individual ranking number higher than 146, Michigan had 6 and Wisconsin had 7.

Although these four coaches seem to be using different philosophies, they all have been successful. MSU, Duke and Wisconsin have been in all of the last 16 tournaments, while Kentucky has been in 14. Between them, they have 24 Elite Eight appearances, 17 Final Four appearances and 8 Championship Game appearances in those last 16 tournaments.

There has been much discussion of late about the success (or lack there of) of Michigan’s basketball recruiting. Specifically, that we are not getting our fair share of upper level recruits given our recent tournament success. This suggests that a teams NCAA tournament success should immediately result in an up-tick in recruiting success. This theory may well be true, but there are many other reasons for a player to pick a particular school, such as academics, location, coaching staff, chemistry with current players, style of play, legacy and so on.

But, if we are going to focus on tournament success, we must first look at said results to determine where Michigan stands in relation to other schools that we are recruiting against. As many have said, we may not win many head-to-head battles with Duke and Kentucky, but we should be on the same level as the second tier of schools (or third tier?). If we assume that most kids start paying attention to sports when they are 8 or 10 years old and committing to their college of choice when they are 16 or 17, does anything that happened more than 8 or 10 years ago mean that much to them? And if we are talking about Michigan’s 2013 title game appearance, maybe we should only look at the last 3 years. Can we agree that a 3-year sample size is too small to be relevant? I chose to look at this century’s results only, 2000 – 2015, sixteen years of NCAA tournaments.

In order to be included in the analysis, a school had to appear in the Sweet Sixteen at least once in those 16 years. That reduced the field to 65. I then awarded each of those teams 1 point for each tournament bid, 2 points for each Sweet Sixteen appearance, 3 for an Elite Eight, 4 for a Final Four and 5 for a Championship Game appearance. There was no additional bonus for actually winning the championship. I realize that this is an arbitrary system that may or may not be fair or totally accurate, but I wanted to keep this somewhat simple, while still meaningful. I then totaled the points for each school and ranked them in order. It may surprise some to learn that the school at the top of the list is MSU followed by the usual suspects: Kansas, Duke, Kentucky, Florida, North Carolina and UCONN. Michigan finished 27th, surrounded by Oklahoma State, Pittsburg, Tennessee and Georgetown.

Many of us think that Michigan should be a 5 Star destination school because we were a bad call or two away from a National Championship just two years ago. However, as you can see, we have only played in 5 of the last 16 tournaments, which is surpassed by 55 other schools on this list. Even in our own conference, Maryland has 8, Purdue 9, Indiana 10, Illinois 11, OSU 12 and Wisconsin and MSU with all 16. We have been kind of late to the party.

Next, I looked at recruiting results. Since we are talking about the bounce from Michigan’s title game appearance, I only looked at the last three years, 2013, 2014 and 2015. I question how significant 2013 is since that class was probably well put to bed before the tournament was completed. In fact, 2014 recruiting was well underway already and may have only been partially affected by our near championship. However, the premise is that we should be benefiting from that run, so onward and upward.

Using 247 Sports Composite Player Rankings for each year, I broke the top 100 ranked players into 4 equal parts. The A column is for the 1-25 ranked players, B = 26-50, C =51-75 and D = 76-100. The chart lists the teams in the same order as the previous chart (tournament success). For each of the three years, I recorded how many players each school signed from each A, B, C, D category. For example, in 2013, Kansas had 3 A players, 2 B players and zero C and D.

Note: The number of 5* and 4* players varies by year. In these 3 specific years, 2013 had 23 5* and 4* went to #115, in 2014 there were only 22 5* but 4* went to #124, and in 2015 it is 23 5* and 4* up to 122. Since I cut it off at 100, not all four-star players will be included in this analysis.

I then assigned a value of 4 points to A players, 3 points to B, 2 to C and 1 point to D players. Again, an arbitrary system, but it is simple and serves the purpose. The last three columns show how many top 100 players each school signed over the 3 year period, how many total points they were worth and where each school ranked based on total number of points. Michigan, which ranked 27 in tournament success, signed 4 top 100 players over the next 3 years, which yielded 10 points and resulted in a ranking of tied for 23. This would suggest that we are having recruiting results that are similar to our tournament success. This analysis is not intended as the final word or to silence the debate, only to add some actual data to the arguments. I think Paul Simon got it right when he penned, “Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.”

Note: As of this writing, there are still 8 uncommitted top 100 players in the 2015 class; #3 Jaylen Brown, #9 Thon Maker, #56 Tevin Mack, #82 George Papagiannis, #88 Kobe Eubanks, #89 Kenny Williams and #91 Marcus Lovett. If we were to get Brown, our total points would increase from 10 to 14 and move us up to a tie for 16th place (assuming other teams remain static).

Chart of Player Rankings by School

2

0

1

3

2

0

1

4

2

0

1

5

# of

Rank

School

A

B

C

D

A

B

C

D

A

B

C

D

Players

Pts

Rank

1

Michigan State

2

1

3

10

23t

2

Kansas

3

2

2

1

2

10

35

3

3

Duke

1

2

4

4

1

42

2

4t

Kentucky

6

4

2

1

13

50

1

4t

Florida

2

1

2

2

1

8

23

7t

6

North Carolina

1

1

2

1

5

17

13

7

UCON

1

1

1

1

4

10

23t

8

Louisville

1

1

2

1

1

3

9

23

7t

9

Wisconsin

1

1

1

49t

10

Arizona

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

10

31

4

11

UCLA

1

1

1

2

1

1

7

21

10t

12

Butler

0

0

13

Syracuse

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

9

23

7t

14

Ohio State

2

1

1

1

3

1

9

25

5t

15

Texas

1

1

1

3

9

29

16

Memphis

1

2

2

1

6

15

15

17

Illinois

2

1

1

1

5

12

19t

18

Maryland

1

1

1

1

1

5

13

17t

19

Oklahoma

0

0

20

Gonzaga

1

1

2

44t

21t

Indiana

1

2

1

1

1

1

7

20

12

21t

Villanova

2

2

1

5

8

30t

21t

Marquette

2

1

1

1

1

6

16

14

21t

West Virginia

2

1

3

6

33t

25

Oklahoma St

1

1

1

1

4

8

30t

26

Pittsburg

1

1

2

2

44t

27

Michigan

2

1

1

4

10

23t

28t

Tennessee

1

1

2

5

35t

28t

Georgetown

1

1

2

1

1

6

13

17t

30

Oregon

1

1

1

3

5

35t

31t

Missouri

1

1

1

1

4

10

23t

31t

Georgia Tech

1

1

1

49t

33t

Stanford

1

1

1

1

4

10

23t

33t

Wichita St

0

0

33t

Purdue

1

1

1

3

4

39t

36t

LSU

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

8

25

5t

36t

VCU

1

1

3

41t

36t

Notre Dame

1

1

2

5

35t

39

Xavier

1

1

1

3

5

35t

40t

Cincinnati

1

1

4

39t

40t

N. Carolina St

1

1

1

1

2

6

14

16

42

Iowa St

1

1

2

3

41t

43t

BYU

1

1

1

3

6

33t

43t

USC

1

1

1

1

4

10

23t

43t

Temple

0

0

46t

San Diego St

1

2

1

1

5

8

30t

46t

Washington

1

1

2

1

5

11

21t

48t

Kansas St

1

1

1

49t

48t

Utah

1

1

2

44t

48t

Davidson

0

0

48t

Dayton

0

0

52t

Vanderbilt

1

1

2

2

44t

52t

St Josephs

0

0

54t

Wake Forrest

1

1

2

3

41t

54t

UNLV

1

2

1

1

1

6

21

10t

54t

Boston College

0

0

54t

Tulsa

0

0

58t

Alabama

1

1

2

44t

58t

Texas A&M

1

3

1

5

12

19t

60t

Virginia

1

1

1

49t

60t

UAB

0

0

62t

Florida St

1

1

1

1

4

11

21t

62t

Texas Tech

0

0

64

Ohio

0

0

65

Le Salle

0

0

There is some interesting date here, if you have the time. Despite MSU ranking at the top in tournament success, they have only signed 3 top 100 players in this 3-year period, which is still better than Wisconsin who also made every tournament and has signed only one. It will probably not surprise you to see that Indiana is better at getting talent than using it. What is up with LSU?

Bonus Michigan Recruiting Chart

247Sports Composite Player Rankings

Year

1 to 25

26 to 50

51 to 75

76 to 100

Other

2010

77 Smotrycz

166 Hardaway

219 Horford

2011

87 Brundidge

93 Burke

2012

16 Robinson

28 McGary

82 Stauskas

171 Albrecht

215 LeVert

2013

28 Irvin

44 Walton

86 Donnal

2014

27 Chatman

123 Wilson

203 Doyle

326 Dawkins

385 MAAR

2015

147 Wagner

2016

100 Teske

182 Davis

A few final thoughts.

Butler appeared in back-to-back championship games in 2010 and 2011 and yet has only signed one top 100 player since, #90 Dunham a four star in 2012. Small bounce.

We can discuss and debate from now until November, what position players are going to play next year and how many minutes they are going to get. Coach Beilein has recently stated that he feels good about the flexibility of next year’s team, meaning that many players can play multiple positions. I approached this from a player position point of view and tried to see if we would likely be better or worse than this year.

1 Spike, Walton

Walton’s minutes increase as he earns them and he will likely be the starter at some point next season (likely sooner than later). Less scoring than last year, but hopefully they can both run the offense and get shots for others. A big step down from this year's POY, but we should be solid.

2 LeVert, Irvin, Spike, Stauskas

A 5 star player who was Indiana’s Mr. Basketball, needs to be on the floor somewhere. With Hardaway’s departure, there is an opening here. LeVert has a year of experience and knows the system. Both players should give us length on the perimeter, outside shooting, dribble penetration and be good in transition. Solid on defense. Even with this year.

3 Stauskas, LeVert , Irvin, Robinson

Expect Nik to be bigger and stronger and a better ball handler. As a second year player, he will have a better understanding of the offense and defense and should be a better defender. Several guys can play this position. Experience makesthis is an upgrade from this year.

4 Robinson, Donnal, Bielfeldt, Morgan, Horford

Expect GRIII to be bigger, stronger and a better defender. Donnal could be the perfect stretch 4 that we thought Smotrycz would be, but probably not this year. We can go with 2 bigs for stretches with Morgan, Horford or even Bielfeldt at the 4. An upgrade from this year.

5 McGary, Horford, Morgan

We should count on a double, double (15+ points & 12+ rebounds) every night from the 5 position. Improving defense from McGary. His threat to score should open things up for the other positions on offense. A big upgrade from this year.

This year, during most of the regular season, we started 2 freshmen, a sophomore and 2 juniors. With this lineup, we would be starting 2 freshmen (Walton & Irvin) and 3 sophomores. Still a very young team. Who will be the leaders? We lost the leadership of Burke, Hardaway and the 5 seniors.

I would expect a slower start to the non-conference portion of the season. Hopefully, they grow up fast and come together by late season. This team could be a Big Ten title contender and a NCAA Sweet Sixteen or better.

The jerseys of 5 Michigan legends, Cassie Russell #33, Rudy Tomjanovich #45, Phil Hubbard #35, Glen Rice #41 and Bill Buntin #22, hang from the rafters in Crisler Arena.There is no question that all five are much deserving of that honor.But, will there ever be a sixth, seventh or more?

What is the criteria for reaching that great honor?Team success?Individual awards?Cazzie led his teams to 3 straight Big Ten titles and to two final fours and was named National Player of the Year as a Senior.Buntin starred along with Cazzie in those two final fours.Glen Rice won a National Championship, set a scoring record in the process and was named “Most Outstanding Player”. Although team accomplishments certainly help, that alone will not get your jersey raised.Individual accomplishments, especially scoring and rebounding, seem to be the requirement.And if you were good at both, all the better.While other categories, such as assist, steals and blocks, are also important, unless you could also score or rebound, those alone will probably not get you selected.

Charts?Yes!

These stats are from: http://stats.ath.umich.edu/basketball/basketstart.php.There are many more stats there as well.I chose to look at career points scored, scoring average, total rebounds and average rebounds per game.To help keep it in perspective, I also included career games started.There may be some players that ranked high in career scoring average, but only played one season (Jamal Crawford).Others, may rank high in career totals not because they were dominant, but because they started for four years (Zack Novak) due to weak teams.I am not saying that we should penalize a player becausethey started for four years on weak teams or because they only played for one or two years, but we need to know their amount of games played to better understand their position in the rankings.

For the chart, I listed the players in order of rank in total points scored.I listed only the current top 25 all time scorers.The remaining columns show where those 25 players rank in the other categories.Below the top 25 scorers, I listed 13 other players because they are ranked in the top 25 in at least one other category.I omitted a few names because they are ranked low and in only one category (Eric Riley & Butch Wade) or because they only played one season.

It should be noted, that the current honorees hold the #1 rank in all four categories.Rice is #1 in points, Russell is #1 in scoring average and Tomjanovich is #1 in both total rebounds and rebound average.Buntin is #2 in both rebounding stats and #4 in scoring average while Hubbard is #3 & #4 in the rebounding categories and stands at #20 in total points.

Michigan Career Leaders - Rank

Total

Scoring

Total

Reb.

Career

Player

Points

Avg.

Reb.

Avg

Starts

Glen Rice

1

9

6

19

16

Mike McGee

2

5

nr

nr

6

Louis Bullock*

3

15

nr

nr

1

Gary Grant

4

12

nr

nr

2

Cazzie Russell

5

1

17

8

nr

LaVell Blanchard

6

19

7

13

9

Rudy Tomjanovich

7

2

1

1

nr

Jalen Rose

8

10

nr

nr

16

Bill Buntin

9

4

2

2

nr

Manny Harris

10

14

nr

nr

20

Henry Wilmore

11

3

nr

8

nr

Daniel Horton

12

23

nr

nr

11

Dion Harris

13

nr

nr

nr

20

Antoine Joubert

14

nr

nr

nr

5

Roy Tarpley

15

nr

5

13

nr

DeShawn Sims

16

nr

12

nr

25

Jimmy King

17

nr

nr

nr

4

Juwan Howard

18

22

9

13

20

Bernard Robinson, Jr.

19

nr

19

nr

14

Phil Hubbard

20

18

4

3

nr

Loy Vaught

21

nr

3

13

nr

Rumeal Robinson

22

24

nr

nr

19

Terry Mills

23

nr

15

19

16

John Tidwell

24

7

nr

nr

nr

Maceo Baston

25

nr

8

nr

nr

Campy Russell

nr

6

nr

4

nr

Ricky Green

nr

8

nr

nr

nr

Chris Webber*

nr

11

14

4

nr

Dennis Stweart

nr

12

nr

8

nr

Ron Kramer

nr

15

nr

nr

nr

Trey Burke

nr

21

nr

nr

nr

Tim Hadaway, Jr.

nr

25

nr

nr

nr

Robert Traylor*

nr

nr

10

8

nr

Oliver Darden

nr

nr

11

6

nr

Courtney Sims

nr

nr

12

nr

7

Zack Novak

nr

nr

21

nr

3

Kenneth Brady

nr

nr

nr

6

nr

C.J. Kupec

nr

nr

21

8

nr

* Denotes players whose individual records have been

vacated due to NCAA and U-M sanctions.

Do any former players qualify for this great honor.Certainly, Mike McGee and Gary Grant should be in the conversation for their scoring and Jalen Rose for his scoring and point guard leadership of the Fab Five era.Two Championship Game appearances can’t hurt either.LaVell Blanchard, Roy Tarpley and Juwan Howard should get a look, since they both scored and rebounded.And what about this Henry Wilmore who started in 70 games from 1970-73 and ranks #3 in scoring average and #8 in rebound average?

As for current and future Wolverines, it seems the key concern could be games (or seasons) played.Today’s trend seems to be for the elite players to leave early for the NBA.Can you hope to get your jersey raised if you only play one or two seasons?So far, I believe only Phil Hubbard has chosen to forego a year of eligibility and still been honored.It should be noted that, at one time, Freshmen were not eligible to play, so three years were the max.I would like to think that some current players have the potential, but it may take three or fours years of playing to achieve the same level as previous stars.Trey Burke has had a great career so far, but will two years be enough?I could see Tim Hardaway, Jr. And Nik Stauskas ending up high on the scoring list, but it would probably take all four years to get there.And what about Glen Robinson, III and Mitch McGary for both scoring and rebounding?What could they do in three or four years?

So, will we see any more jerseys go up?If so, who is your pick for the next one?